The spread of people to Australia

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
2,332
Australia
#2
Modern Australians ? Very mixed due to migrations. It is a 'multi-cultural' and multi-ethnically mixed society. Also there are many indigenous that had an origin in Australia ; Ab - original ( Ab, an old word for father - original father ) .

There where Chinese for early mining, Islanders for cane cutting and labor, Europeans to boost population and for large projects (like Snowy Mountains Scheme), war refugees like Vietnamese, political refugees like Iranians, more recently a lot of Africans. And all their descendants .
 
Last edited:
Likes: bboomer
Oct 2018
684
Adelaide south Australia
#3
Might be a good idea to mention the white Australia policy, which was not abolished until 1973. Before that time you could not migrate to Australia if you came from Africa, any SE asian nation, India, Pakistan, China or Japan.


It's amazing how the Australian population has changed in a mere 45 years. That massive change only really started when we began accepting Vietnamese refugees in the 1980's.

I couldn't find how many different nationalities we have, but believe it's over 100. I found the info below:

The top 10 countries providing the most permanent migrants to Australia in order of rank for 2014-15 are:
  • India.
  • People's Republic of China.
  • United Kingdom.
  • Philippines.
  • Pakistan.
  • Ireland.
  • Vietnam.
  • South Africa.
 
Jul 2017
387
Sydney
#4
The Australian aborigines are quite interesting too. Some of their roots point back to India based on their maternal DNA analysis.

I read a paper saying there might have been a wave entering Australia about 6000 years ago from south India which changed the tool technology etc.

The citation is here for those interested

Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia.
Pugach I, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013.
Authors
Pugach I1, Delfin F, Gunnarsdóttir E, Kayser M, Stoneking M
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
2,332
Australia
#5
The Australian aborigines are quite interesting too. Some of their roots point back to India based on their maternal DNA analysis.



I read a paper saying there might have been a wave entering Australia about 6000 years ago from south India which changed the tool technology etc.

The citation is here for those interested

Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia.
Pugach I, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013.
Authors
Pugach I1, Delfin F, Gunnarsdóttir E, Kayser M, Stoneking M
Thats outdated .

" Also our genome data do not show any significant gene flow events into Australia from India around 6,000 years ago, suggested by previous research. "

DNA reveals a new history of the First Australians


The changes in tools, food processing technology and arrival of dingo where the indicators previously cited , but even people with that view (of an Indian influence in Australia 6000 years ago ), are cautious within their interpretations, eg ;


Study links ancient Indian visitors to Australia’s first dingoes
“We also detect a signal indicative of substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia well before European contact ... "

(note " gene flow " , such a term needs to be understood for fuller comprehension )

" However, the dingo also first appears in the fossil record at this time and must have come from outside Australia. Although dingo mtDNA appears to have a Southeast Asian origin, morphologically, the dingo most closely resembles Indian dogs,” the researchers said. "

( Note how they admit it has SEA origin .... but resembles an Indian dog . The research on dingoes and how they do not relate to Indian dogs but SEA ones was done some time ago )

“We don’t claim the dingo and changes in stone tool technologies came with these migrants. We suggest that maybe they accompanied the people.”

.....

“It does not necessarily indicate direct contact with mainland India. For example it could be via populations elsewhere whose original source was mainland India,”
......

“It is quite wrong to simplistically assume that Australia was discovered by people only once some 40,000 years ago. Such an assumption denies intelligent behaviour to people in the South and the East of Asia and its fringes as well as to Aboriginal Australians. People were capable of sea travel and exploration for many hundreds of thousands of years and thus should have come to Australia many times during the last 50,000 years or so.”

(Note ; SEA ... not India )

“Australian people were, for tens of thousands of years, a part of the human population of the world exchanging both genes and cultural information with their neighbours.”

( Again, this may not mean 'India' . It depends on how some interpret the findings . Saying Australian Aboriginals have 'roots in India' can be misleading ..... if one wants to say they did , may as well say they had roots in Africa as well .

It might be less incorrect to say that as the people who would become the Australian Aboriginals migrated through India, they left their genetic material behind . Or even ; the people that lived in SEA 'back then' where all of a similar type , but moved or where displaced by others, leaving some remnant pockets behind and settling in other areas where they then became more genetically distinct and specialized.

- but I am sure there are some here on this forum that like the idea of a boat load of Indians coming here and introducinhg the Aboriginals to dogs, new technology and food processing ;)
 
Likes: Kadi
Jul 2017
387
Sydney
#6
Well, I read this bit but the authors still don't outright say India wasn't the source.

They just add an additional qualifier saying it could even have been a south east Asian population with an Indian source.

And domesticated dogs have an interesting Indian connection as even in bronze and iron age findings from Europe, part of the genome appears to be Indian dog/wolf
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
31,123
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#7
We do not permit the discussion of genetics on Historum. Any further mentions of DNA and the like will get this thread closed.
 
Jul 2017
387
Sydney
#8
We do not permit the discussion of genetics on Historum. Any further mentions of DNA and the like will get this thread closed.
Sorry! My bad, I apologize. Won't happen again.

I actually got confused seeing the tag archaeology and thought it won't hurt to bring up archaeogenetics.

But I got it now :)
 

Similar History Discussions